Category Archives: State Rape

Epiphany. The penny drops for Don Brash…. Welfare is evil, and is destroying lives….and society.

Britain_e6c7b0_5615360

Newsflash!
Welfarism is Evil!
Don Brash has been reading….

I congratulate Don for these realizations (see his facebook post Below) …it’s just a pity he’s no longer leader of the National party. (Did I really say that?… hmmm…. no that cant be right!)
My point is that Oh so many leaders seem to ‘conveniently’ have such Epiphanies after they leave office/ positions of influence… where they may have been able to do some good.
No longer pandering to the powers that be, Police chiefs declare the war on drugs to be a failure…. after they leave office, etc.
Politicians get all principled…. after they are no longer soliciting votes.

They come out all Libertarian…. in their farewell address.
Yet still better late than never!

To be fair to Don…. He stood up for many Libertarian truths *while in office*, such as opposition to Waitangi Apartheid while leader of the National party.
He bravely spoke against Cannabis prohibition as Leader of Act.
And of course as a money man… hes always condemned the ‘borrow borrow, spend spend, mentality of the left.
All bold stands in today’s PC Brain dead Socialist lunatic asylum…all these make him a Stand out personality in the history of New Zealand politics.

My question is…. what will Don do with this latest realization?
It really is massive.
Lets hope this is stimulus for New and Greater activism!

Go Hard Don!

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Don+Brash+New+Zealand+Gears+Up+General+Election+3XGiY3qQjr5l

Don Brash
3 hrs •
I have just finished reading a profoundly disturbing book. I bought it 10 years ago, but have only just read it. It’s called “The Welfare State we’re in”, and was written by James Bartholomew. It is about the effect of the welfare state on the UK. Mr Bartholomew concludes that “the welfare state has been a disaster for Britain… [It] has ruined lives and left people morally and culturally impoverished. It has left many depressed and alienated, too. It has caused some to become criminals – a waste of a life – and others to be the victims of criminals. It has spoiled trust between people and caused millions of patients to suffer and to worry. Tens of thousands have died prematurely. It has reduced the decency and happiness of the British people”.
And perhaps most worrying of all, he concludes that the people most adversely affected by the welfare state are the very people it was designed to help – the poor and those on low incomes.
I’m not going to try to summarise a 360 page book in a Facebook post but to me the book is utterly persuasive. He looks at the way in which healthcare, education, provision for support in old age, benefits to the unemployed, provision of “council housing”, together with the high taxation and slow economic growth which have inevitably accompanied the vast expansion of the welfare state, have made the intended beneficiaries of those policies worse off than had the welfare state never existed.
I have no doubt that this post will attract a number of people keen to denounce the book as written by some hard-right guy who just doesn’t understand how awful society would be without the welfare state. And no doubt there will be those who denounce me for praising the book, assuming I like it only because, in their view, I am a “hard-right” former politician. To those people I say: have the guts, and the integrity, to read the book before denouncing it. It is extremely compelling.
Mr Bartholomew has just written another book, this time called “The Welfare of Nations”, which apparently attempts to answer the question “If the welfare state is so bad, what should we do about it?” That is next on my reading list.

From >>>Here<<<.... Please take the time to encourage him to again Step up and *Do something* He's a mover and a shaker.... New Zealand desperately needs Guys like him to act. ************************************ Read more.... A Salute to a Kiwi Hero. Don Brash.

Don, you da man!

Universal Pride in Washington, Separatist Shame in Wellington.

Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013

Why a new Constitution for New Zealand must protect the Individual from Mobocracy.

The Great Waitangi Debate. 2010

Doomed! Prison of our own device…

hqdefault

How to Share With Just Friends

How to share with just friends.

Posted by Facebook on Friday, December 5, 2014

Read more…. Enslaved by your own Gullible Stupidity! Taxation and Tyranny.

Time to Choose…. Storm Clouds Gathering. God given Rights vs Tyranny

The Government wants to kill you. They know the end is nigh.

Epitaph. The Death of America and Western Democracy. Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech.

Putin stashes tonnes of gold, while America burries itself in play money.

Shitstorm in Nevada! The Crisis Revisited. DC Clothesline.

Bundy Cowboys and Militia Stand on the highest legal ground… Why the 2nd Amendment was enshrined.

Bankrupt Socialist State means urgent need to take care of your own safety and defence.

Bundy Cowboys and Militia Stand on the highest legal ground… Why the 2nd Amendment was enshrined.

Riders on the Storm! Homeland Security already confiscating guns .

Christian Father defends 2nd Amendment and Liberty from Oppotunist Tyranny and Reactionary Socialism. Columbine Tragedy

Daddy… What part did you play in the Revolution?

Legalised Force attracts Thugs and Bullies like flies to…

Time to Choose…. Storm Clouds Gathering. God given Rights vs Tyranny

Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013

Imbecile Nations watch Greece crumbling… yet fail to grasp the lesson, and modify their own institutions.

hqdefault

Take a good look at what has happened in Greece.
It is happening all about western Socialist democracies, and the same fate will happen here too… eventually because New Zealand is governed by the same Economic and social lunacy.

The Ever expanding State, along with it’s ever expanding debts, and ever expanding injustices, is a consequence of not setting strict limits to Government spheres of action.

The world economy is in a very precarious state which could collapse at any moment, yet even if it takes 20 more years of Nutty Labour/ National Socialism to bankrupt the nation, do you really want your children, and their children to inherit an economy like the one right now in Greece?

greecee

That will be the inevitable legacy our foolish generation will bequeath to posterity.
Worse we will have brain washed them into living in matchboxes, and traveling on Public conveyor belts….

The Economic books of the future putting this Mess of Socialist interventionism and Fiat currencies down to a failure of the free markets….

greek mythology

New Zealand needs a New political party which forthrightly argues for great reductions in Government power, spending, etc.

If we *act now*…. so much less will be the Austerity/ misery involved in making the necessary reforms.
The longer things go on… the more severe
the pain and effort required to climb out of the Abyss.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.

More from Tim…. Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013

Reality Punches Socialist’s In The Face!

No Utopia.

The Coming American Civil War.

Morbid dreams of anarchy

47410_640

A Christian anarchist is … one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world.

Ammon Hennacy

Am I still a libertarian?

I don’t know the history of the word ‘libertarian’, who first coined it, or what it originally meant. But today there are at least three senses of the word. In a broad sense, a libertarian is someone who advocates more freedom and less government. In a narrower Randian sense, a libertarian is a minarchist. Someone who asserts that the legitimate role of the state is restricted to maintaining law and order, administering justice, and defending the realm. In the increasingly common modern-day sense a libertarian is a selfish asshole.

I’m still a libertarian in the broad sense, but no longer call myself such, because of the modern-day sense of the word. We owe its rise to Ayn Rand and her followers and to the liberal left who seize upon such opportunities as are provided by libertarians promoting “the virtue of selfishness” to tar us all with the same Objectivist brush. Its the very same statists whose successful attempts to perniciously redefine the word ‘liberal’ meant that we had to relinquish that particular label in favour of ‘libertarian’ but now that label too has become more trouble than its worth for true freedom fighters. Rand herself was adept at pernicious redefinition (it’s a key ingredient of her philosophical fiction) and we are now reaping the grim rewards of her linguicidal legacy.

Am I still a minarchist? No. (But I’m still a monarchist. Thy kingdom come.)

There’s a universal human tendency to latch on to appealing doctrines and dogmas, often at an early age, and then to fall prey to confirmation bias. We all do this, and typically we spend the rest of our lives with blinkers on, rehearsing and attending to information that supports our own settled opinions. And we give succour to inner demons who prowl around our minds like roaring lions looking for anomalous data points to devour. A typical example is that of a child who is raised by overbearing parents in a puritanical Christian household and who in adolescence is introduced to Ayn Rand’s novels and fictional philosophy. No doubt such is a liberating catharsis. But theirs is a sad fate. They throw out the baby Jesus with the religious bathwater of their parents but lose none of their parents’ zealotry which they take up in service of a seductive but ungodly cause, personal liberty that knows no master but the self. Most tragic of all, however, is the ongoing damage that the mistress of pain inflicts on their already injured minds. Rand both corrupts the soul and rots the brain. Objectivists and other assorted new atheists delude themselves that they are freethinkers yet the truth is that they have shaken of the shackles off their religious upbringings only to straight away submit to mental slavery in a different guise.

The mind of a true freethinker knows no bounds. At will it soars the celestial heavens of human cognition or traverses the valley of the shadow of brain death unscathed. What the mind of a true freethinker does not do is roam only throughout the earth, going back and forth over the same old ground, expecting to revise its worldview according the same old data every time. That’s insanity.

All of which is by means of getting around to saying that I’ve recently reviewed my political belief system and found minarchism wanting. The unexamined belief is not worth believing. Have you ever stopped to question your fundamental minarchist tenets? Minarchists assert that the state should have a legalised monopoly on violence and that it is good and proper that the citizenry should subject themselves to the authority of a gang of armed thugs whose ostensible duty it is to protect us from criminal aggression. But wait. Isn’t that the job of private security companies? How much protection is the state supposed to afford us anyway? Our tax dollars already pay for signs chiding us to lock our vehicles whilst blaming the victims of car thefts for the consequences of their own laxity. Shouldn’t the state extend this protection to subsidising deadlocks for our front and back doors? State agents could install them at the same time as the (soon-to-be if not already) mandatory insulation in our ceilings and wall cavities, while Nanny checks to makes sure we’ve shut all the windows before we go out.

Here’s what surely amounts to a strong case for anarchism as the only moral system of government. Ayn Rand hated it. She had this to say about the Libertarian Party of her day.

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

And this is the main thrust of her argument.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

Very well, then. Let’s take it from there. A weird absurdity called “competing governments”? It’s what the world has now and has had since the dawn of civilisation. A number of different governments in the same geographical area? Yes, that’s how the habitable surface of the planet has always been carved up. Nor can one call it a floating abstraction? No, let’s call it God’s green earth, a glorious gemstone floating in space. Cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately? Third rock from the sun.

Rand’s objection to anarchism amounts to no more than a description of the state of global politics. Terra firma is today divided up into a relatively small number of nation states, all controlled by governments that oppress the citizenry to a greater or, thankfully, lesser extent.

Why shouldn’t every citizen be free to “shop” and to patronise whatever government he chooses? Standard libertarian thinking is that borders should be open to peaceful people. So why don’t we have open borders globally? Because, as Rand rightly observes, forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer!

Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. It would mean anarchy. Which is what the world has now. Except that size does matter. Anarchists support there being a relatively huge number of nation states. Fragments of what used to be. The only limit to the number of nation states on the planet being the number of sovereign individuals.

Now consider what it is that Rand inadvertently (yeah right) is actually advocating. She’s advocating a single, monopolistic world government. That tyrannises the entire world, erasing all and any borders for inmates of what is now a prison planet to flee across. Welcome to Ayn Rand’s new world order.

Ask yourself what no competition in forcible restraint would have to mean. It would have to mean one world government, a statist hell on earth, and one head of state. And all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour would now be his.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RxUzXzGSFA

Legalise Drugs and Murder

10351610_692493784120573_3117744065980062998_n

Green Party to decriminalise abortion

The Green Party will decriminalise abortion and assert the right of women to make decisions regarding their own health and the wellbeing of their family or whanau.

But will the Green Party assert the right of unborn women to make decisions regarding their own health? Check your born privilege!

Abortion is currently a crime under the Crimes Act. It is only legal if two consultants agree that the pregnancy would seriously harm the woman’s mental or physical health or that the fetus would have a serious disability.

So let’s get this straight. Abortion is already legal if “the fetus would have a serious disability.” That’s disability based discrimination, isn’t it?

“The Green Party trusts women to make decisions that are best for them and their whānau/family,” Green Party women’s spokesperson Jan Logie said.

“The Green Party believes the time has come for New Zealand to take an honest approach to abortion, to treat it as the health issue it is, and remove it from the crime statutes.

I think the time has come for the Green Party to take an honest approach to abortion, and acknowledge that abortion is killing an unborn child. Abortion is a form of infanticide.

“The fact that 99 percent of abortions are approved on ‘mental health’ grounds and that rape is not grounds for an abortion reveals the dishonesty of the current legal situation.

“By keeping abortion a crime, New Zealand has created an unnecessary stigma around abortion that has led to delays, erratic access to terminations depending on where you are in the country, and unnecessarily late terminations.

Perhaps there should be a stigma around killing babies. Nice to have?

“Decriminalisation will reduce the stigma and judgement that surrounds abortion, and enable abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy, which is safer for women.

“The Green Party’s policy would allow terminations after 20 weeks gestation only when the woman would otherwise face serious permanent injury to her health or in the case of severe fetal abnormalities

“Our policy will ensure that women have access to neutral counselling, if they want it, and that women who choose to continue with their pregnancy are given more support and are not financially penalised for doing so.

“We would also ensure parents are fully informed about the support available for families and people living with disabilities and address discrimination against disabled people that exists in the current laws around abortion,” Ms Logie said.

I don’t see how the Green Party can “address discrimination against disabled people that exists in the current laws around abortion” by amending the abortion laws to make it legal to kill disabled people in the womb. But maybe my head’s just too muddled by smoking too much of the other thing the Greens want to decriminalise?

When is a disability not a disability? When it’s a severe fetal abnormality.

Green Party women’s spokesperson Jan Logie also posted this clarification on Facebook.

Some people have raised concerns that our policy might allow abortions post 20 weeks based on disability. This is not the intent of the policy. The Greens have a commitment to human rights and the acknowledgement of international obligations runs under all of our policies. The UN Committee with responsibility for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has already ruled that any distinction in abortion law on the grounds of fetal abnormality breaches the CRPD so our policy will not do that. The intent is to re to allow abortion after 20 weeks for a baby who has conditions so severe that they are extremely unlikely to survive post birth.

So the intent is to allow abortion after 20 weeks for a baby who has conditions so severe that they are extremely unlikely to survive post birth. But not if those severe conditions are fetal abnormalities. What other severe conditions are such that a baby is unlikely to survive post birth? Being sucked out of the womb with a vacuum cleaner?

Provisions later in the policy make it clear that we wish to extend protections against disability based discrimination.

We just read (above) that abortion is already legal if “the fetus would have a serious disability.” Is this the disability based discrimination the Greens want to protect against?

Also, if a baby has “conditions so severe that they are extremely unlikely to survive post birth,” why not just let nature take its course? That would be the Green thing to do, after all.

I’m not sure what disgusts me the most. Killing babies in the womb or the Green Party’s blatant contradictions, Orwellian newspeak and senseless rape of the English language.

Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism. Socialist pragmatism vs Libertarian Idealism

quote-Aristotle-plato-is-dear-to-me-but-dearer-102583

It has been with great sadness that over the past year I have witnessed my fellow Libertarian Blogger Richard Goode change tack and sail off course, and now become an apologyst for Socialist Statism.

This has been evidenced by his entire behaviour in relation to the Psychoactive Substances Act, and particular with regards to Synthetic Cannabis.

To make my point I refer you to all his Blog posts on this subject in which he consistently demonstrates that he believes all the Negative hype about the dangers of Synthetics… which is in my view incredulous considering the history of Prohibition, and it’s reliance on Lies and phobia about drug use, as supposed vindication for the Governments perpetration of a highly oppressive war upon it’s own citizens.

While he calls himself a Libertarian, He has in reality swallowed the Socialist lie that Harm Minimisation is a legitimate function of Government and has attempted to formulate an argument for this >>>Here<<<, yet it is a tragic testimony to his having put the Cart before the horse. While Libertarianism has many pragmatic advantages over Socialist tyranny, Libertarianism is firstly an Individualist Ideology.... a philosophy which embodies clear principles of Law and Justice which protects the sovereignty of Individuals from tyrannical Government, and the pragmatic advantages for society... to the degree that there are any... are merely the By-product which flows from these principles. The Free society is a far more Humane and enlightened civilisation than socialism, and the type of Self reliant- self responsible, and charitable citizenry it fosters, and the peaceful Social interaction which spontaneously generates in a coexistence free of political coercion and advantage... are all extremely preferable ... pragmatically speaking.... yet to mistake these benefits as being the vindication for it's principles is utterly false. The Vindication for Libertarianism is in it's *Justice* for Individuals, and it's defence of the Individual's self-ownership, and it's Principled limits to political power... whether the will of a Monarch, or 'The mandate of the Majority'...the will of the largest Mob. Ie Libertarianism protects Individuals, minorities, and even Majorities, from Social arbitrary Law. That is what vindicates Libertarianism... not its pragmatic social advantages, and certainly not any idea of 'Harm minimisation' for the individual. Libertarians ought to have social concern for others, yet that is an utterly foreign principle to Libertarian ideology... It is in fact a definitive *Socialist* political lever, and pseudo-justification for Political intervention...and it is here where my friend has gone so far astray... Libertarianism embodies voluntary community action. Believe me when I say that I sympathise which how he was lured down this road... It was because the Anti-Prohibitionist movement (in particular Cannabis Law reformers) whom were never Libertarians began to argue for an end to prohibition... not on the basis of Individual rights, but on the basis that Cannabis was safer than alcohol. This was the socialist 'Harm minimisation' Doctrine... which sought to win over the socialist parliament by convincing a big enough mob that by allowing legal cannabis, they would be helping to reduce the Evils of Alcoholism which have been exacerbated by its monopolistic Legal Status. These arguments are thoroughly aimed at a socialist pragmatic mentality which prevails both within New Zealand's parliament, and in our society as a whole. It is a Utilitarian mentality which has abandoned all ideological principles of justice in pursuit of 'The Greatest Happiness'. Under this philosophy the Government can do whatever it pleases with individuals as long as it can convince a majority, that it's actions are conducive to the collective well being of society as a whole. Thus Individuals have become the property 'of society'. Society may overstep a persons individual liberty and self-responsibility either under the pretence of protecting the Hapless individual from himself, or the pretence of minimizing 'problems' that individual choices can have upon Society at large... esp Financial strains upon 'social services' which are run by the government and funded collectively via taxation. Druggies are deemed to be an inexcusable burden upon the system. pink judge

It is under these pretences that modern Socialist judges have no compunction against Jailing peaceful old Pot smokers whom refuse to submit to the Political will of Nanny state.
*Jail is deemed to be for their own good, and the Good of society as a whole*

They believe the ruinous effects upon an individuals life of incarceration are in fact preferable to ‘allowing him’ to continue in his drug use, and that society is safer while drugs are actively being suppressed by the Police.
*Freedom is dangerous* *Nanna Knows Best* *Etc*.

Now it is not the place here and now for me to argue why this whole socialist perspective is utter tyrannical, or why Libertarianism denies it is the proper duties of government to provide social services like public health care.
It ought to be enough to point out how utterly at variance with Libertarianism, this whole approach to ending Cannabis prohibition is.

I shall proceed to explain how my Brother Blogger took his wrong turn and has now wandered so far off track that he has crossed the line and is no longer worthy of the Name *Libertarian*.
My explanation is not written to vilify, but to show how easily this deviation occurred.

Not only do I sympathise with my fellow blogger, but hope that after contemplating what I have written that he will correct his course back over to the Libertarian side.

Many years ago many Kiwi Libertarians, including myself, as members of the Late Great yet struggling Libertarianz party, were supportive of a proposal written by Richard Goode for having a Transitional policy for Drug Law reform, which was accepted because it provided a rational pathway of least resistance to ending the war on drugs.

Our previous policy of simply legalising all drugs was too much for the voting public to swallow and had absolutely no hope of ever being adopted in totality, and so the new proposal presented to the voting public and parliament, was that the War be de-escalated starting with de-criminalising the softer drugs first, and then as fears were alleviated by having legal highs, that support could then be gained for further reforms, with ultimate end being an absolute end to the war on drugs.

elephant_one_bite

We would devour the Prohibition elephant one bite at a time… leaving the boniest portions till last.
And what defined ‘soft drugs’ was their perceived ‘safer than alcohol’ status.

The virtue of this policy was that it was idealistic, yet also realistic as means to our ultimate end because it was far more popular with the People… there was already support for Cannabis Law reform and our definition of cannabis as a ‘softer drug than alcohol’ was met with great enthusiasm from the Socialist faction of Cannabis Law reform movement whom are by far the greatest majority in the movement.

I have no doubt that Richard ‘liberated’ his definition for ‘soft drugs’ for the Libertarianz party transitional drug policy directly from the Socialists.

Richard’s policy was genius, as it unified Idealism with pragmatical realism, and popularity.
He ought to be proud of it.

Unfortunately though, in the years that have since past, and with the de-registration of the Libertarianz party, and Richard joining and now representing the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, which is still predominantly a Socialist Party, He has obviously lost his Libertarian bearings.

He has forgotten that The Libertarians supported his transitional policy because of it’s progression of Justice… not because it’s starting point of legalising softer drugs was in any way supposes Libertarians endorse the socialist idea that Governments ought to concern themselves with ‘harm reduction’.

It is only in the light of these sorts of consideration that as Libertarian I had anything good to say about the Psychoactive substances act.

To the degree that it did allow a special dispensation to some products to be legally available, and also allowed a convoluted means (in theory) for other products to eventually make it to Market… having run the ‘regulation gauntlet’, it was supposed to be an improvement on the ‘Ban everything as they appear’ prohibition-ism which was the prevailing ‘socialist wisdom’ at the beginning of the rise of synthetic dugs which are now being manufactured to bypass existing prohibitions.

The thing was that Richard had now utterly lost all sight of what Libertarianism is about, and swallowed the socialist ‘Harm minimisation’ pill that he actually condemned the PSA for being too Libertarian!
*He was thoroughly in the Socialist Camp that it is the governments duty to decide what Citizens are allowed to ingest*

He was outraged that Peter Dunne was not acting Nanny Statist enough… because in his mind it was committing a crime by allowing dangerous and untested Synthetic Cannabis to be legally sold!

He relentlessly fanned the fires of Anti-Synthetic Cannabis hysteria… much to the joy of many of his Pro-cannabis Socialist mates, and condemned the Legal highs industry as evil profiteers at the expense of Hapless sheeple.

He told them to voluntarily remove their products, and castigated them for not heeding him… saying that a backlash was growing which would result in their products being banned.
I said that I didn’t think that would happen, yet I was wrong on that count… and I am sure he experienced euphoria when…. being an election year… and with all the Media sensationalism surrounding the Anti-legal high lobby that via the ensuing shysterism/ party politicking of the powers that be.. that the Libertarian portions of the Act got blotted out, and the means by which products could be deemed safe and thereby legalised… was virtually shut.

(Read my post on this >>>Here<<<) This was a leap backwards in the struggle to End Drug prohibition as it re-invigorated Prohibitionism. The world was watching and prohibitionists everywhere celebrated. Having Legal highs in New Zealand... they say... proved to be a failure. discoredia-the-evil-dead-drugs-raves-and-othe-L-MthvyL

Richard and his friend Blogger Mark Hubbard now dwell on the Dark side.
They ignore studies which suggest synthetic cannabis is relatively safe, and instead invoke terror by calling it ‘Legal Heroin’ ‘like P’…. etc… as if Libertarians support the War on Heroin and Meth!

Mark blames the Government for all the supposed troubles experienced by Legal high users… as if they have no personal responsibility.

*BOGUS!*

I have no problem with Libertarians believing certain drugs to be dangerous… even if they are getting their information from patently Dubious sources.
Of course there can be dangers involved in taking drugs.
Alcohol is dangerous… yet to say their Dangerous nature justifies Prohibitions is patently Un-libertarian and socialist!
The philosophical war they have declared is a Socialist Jihad against Individual Rights and Liberties!

call nanana

Richard’s last blog post attempts to be an argument for the government socialist interventions
He by passes the fundamental Libertarian principles which clearly define and articulate the legitimate function of government as being strictly limited to defending Rights and Liberties of individuals, and instead substitutes that with his bogus Pragmatist doctrine of ‘Harm minimisation’ which is pure Utilitarian Socialism … not Libertarianism.
To say that he is going ‘Back to basics’ could not be further from the truth

He attempts to smoke you readers by saying harm minimisation is a legitimate concern of Government with the bogus rationalisation that preventing ‘itself’ from putting people in Jail… which is harmful … as being a form of ‘Harm minimisation’ when in reality the principles involved are no such thing!
He has stitched up a sophistry which is in complete contradiction to Libertarian limited government.

The Legal and just principles against unjust imprisonment are keeping constitutional restraints forbidding the State from stepping outside it’s legitimate and just functions and encroaching upon our legitimate liberties, and violating our Rights which it has been instituted to protect!

This is black and white… lines not to crossed…. spheres of liberty, personal ethics, the pursuit of happiness, and self-responsibility… not to be encroached upon… not even for ‘harm minimisation’.

There are Powers never to be usurped… and they are not contingent upon whether or not Nanny State’s dictates are harmful or beneficial to either society or Individuals themselves.

It could very well be that some Laws could prevent idiots from harming themselves… yet to the Libertarian… that is no justification for passing oppressive laws…. which treat everyone like idiots… and gives the State paternalistic powers.
Harm minimisation is an endorsement of social interventions, not Libertarian self- ownership and responsibility.

Libertarians say that to allow the Government to legislate to protect people from themselves is to people the world with Fools.

Read my Blog post on this >>>Here<<< Richard... the Philosopher... no doubt assumes the Libertarian principle of having an arbitrary demarcation for being of Age of 'Adult consent and culpability' (in regards to being allowed to purchase alcohol without Parental permission) as being a form of 'Regulation' and 'Supply control'... which is again Bullshit. By that way of thinking All Laws are 'Regulations'... and that therefore the only 'Free market' can exist is under Anarchy. That R18 Principle of Law is necessary in regards to Legal parental rights and responsibilities, and custodianship , yet a young person ought to be able to apply for Adult Status earlier. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. It recognises a limited legitimate sphere for Government, yet these do not include 'Licensing products'... like alcohol, FDA approval, or Taxes, or 'Harm minimisation' etc. The only 'License' Libertarians would support is an R18 age restriction on the purchase and sale of liquor, etc with those whom violate this condition being criminally liable and negate their right to sell. If parents allow their own kids to enjoy alcohol, Pot, etc at a younger age, that is their own business. If Parents want to try alternative treatments on their sick infant children such as Cannabis... they have that fundamental right. I brew some booze yet I also buy Alcohol, and pay taxes on it. It does not mean I support the Status quo.... yet I still believe it is better... more Libertarian than outright prohibition. The same with proposals to 'Educate', 'Tax', and 'Regulate' Cannabis. Again I dont say that is the Libertarian Objective, yet it is better than current Prohibition. Richard and Mark have utterly abandoned Libertarianism and become Socialist Statist Prohibitionists. You have abandoned principles of Justice in favour of Socialist Utilitarian Pragmatism. To recover yourselves and to restore yourselves into the Libertarian fold is simple, and it does not require you to drop your opinion about the Safety of Synthetic Cannabis, or mean you must cease arguing that you think Real cannabis is safer. All it requires you to do is to stop arguing that 'Harm minimisation' is a legitimate concern of governments, and desist from supporting any prohibitions on drugs. If on the other hand you think the War on P, on H, and on Synthetics is justifiable, and legitimate, will them please desist from calling yourselves Libertarians. small gold guy_0

It has only been a few weeks since Synthetic cannabis was taken off the shelves, and yet My InLaws reported seeing a bunch of people sniffing glue in the Park.
So much for Harm reduction!

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

Swallowing Brontosauri: The great fossil fuel delusion.

gas

^^^^ Hahahaha…. on whom is the Joke really?

Many years ago I herd a very interesting theory, which immediately struck a chord.
Simply put … It made much more sense than the common assumptions.
What is un-questioningly accepted as Scientific Fact and ‘Common wisdom’ is patently absurd.

What am I on about?
Oil and Gas are falsely assumed to be a fossil fuels…. the reality is *there are no Fossil Fuels!*
They are all simply naturally occurring accumulations of Organic compounds of which the Earth is made.

The idea that Oil and gas reserves are the remains of Prehistoric Creatures and vegetation which were somehow buried in massive deposits before decomposition is quite frankly Ridiculous!

fossil-fuels-graph

Apart from the fact that you can make make oil, gas, and coal via industrial processes from Wood, etc,
the delusion that Oil and Gas are ‘fossil fuels’ was argued from the fact that oil samples under a microscope revealed ‘cellular’ materials.
Yet it later turned out that these Biological ‘bits and pieces’ are not the remnants of Dinosaurs and trees (as supposed, and taught to the Masses) but are the remnants of Bacteria which have since been discovered to live in the Oil deep down below the surface of the Earth.

What is known as Earth’s ‘Biosphere’ … the regions of which Living organisms may be found extends from deep within the Earth itself right up into High altitudes of the atmosphere.
Thermopiles have been found living as deep as 5km underground.

And recent discoveries in Space exploration are now rendering the Fossil fuel hypothesis even more untenable.
Surely the Lie cannot continue much longer… can it???

Just recently vast quantities of liquid “hydrocarbons’ have been discovered in places like Saturn’s moon Titan … and because there have never existed living creatures on theses moons…. it proves that Hydrocarbons form in abundance within our solar system via other natural processes… On Earth carbon is converted internally under heat and pressure etc.
On Titan, it is the cold which liquefies the naturally abundant Gases and ‘Oils’ rain from the sky and form lakes, etc.
All it takes is the right conditions… no Dinosaurs… no forests required.

Suspicion that Oil was not a Fossil fuel has been suspected for Decades… even longer, yet the belief persisted and is perpetuated because it suits the Oil companies to sell it at a premium, and to the Doomsday Greenies whom cry out that ‘fossil fuels’ are a Non-renewable resource that are being Rapaciously consumed… that there is an Oil crisis ahead… and so Capitalism must be stopped, and that heavy handed State control of these ‘limited Resources’ was essential to prevent the eminent ‘Dooms Day’ … The collapse of modern civilisation and Technology…. and a reversion back into the dark age.

These are the same freaks whom also push ‘Climate change’ hysteria…. which also according to them is fast bringing Global catastrophe…. and so…. ‘surprise surprise’… requires the State to seize control of all the worlds resources and restrain Human liberty.
Putting an end to the assumed Decadence of owning your own Gas guzzers with Ginormous ‘Carbon footprints’… etc

fossil-fuels-skeleton-hand1

Yet there is no crisis (At least not from Green house gasses or a shortage of Oil!)… no need to surrender the world to a Global Fascist/Commy State….alias Leviathan.

Oil and Gas are constantly being made within the Earth’s crust… out of the Earth itself.
Drained reservoirs refill.
The Idea that Oil and Gas are ‘fossil fuels is one of the great myths of our age.
It demonstrates Humanities infinite capacity to swallow Brontosaurus sized delusions and politically manufactured pseudo-science.
Yet because the Fossil fuel myth it is so utterly believed by the great bulk of humanity, I know that not many people reading this will believe me.
They will say I’m Nuts.
How dare I question the orthodox view?
Heretic!
🙂

I on the other hand am wondering how long will these Jurassic delusions continue?

Hitler has been sited as saying… “the Bigger the Lie, the more people will believe it.”

Another saying is…
‘… a person is more likely to continue to believe a lie he has herd a thousand times rather than the truth he has herd only once’.

I wonder what sort of Comments this Blog post will elicit
🙂

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Hot_Rod_Burnout_by_dirkbehlau

Tick…Tock… Tick… Puff Puff. Where does Act’s Jamie Whyte stand on Cannabis Law Reform?

jam wh

Currently nobody knows!
Will he maintain Political Dinosaur John Bank’s status quo position or will he show he’s got bigger gonads, more heart, and more scruples, by actually putting forward a more enlightened policy which actually gives some substance to Acts claims to be a party founded upon principles of personal freedom and responsibility?

Is Jamie serious about Personal freedom or is that just a hollow sounding platitude to him like it is for so many in the Act party.
So many Act-ites are really only interested in one thing….Financial freedom.
In every other sense they are Nanny Statists.
That’s why they supported John Banks.

If Jamie intends to forge his own brand and restore any credibility of Act in the eyes of the voting public… he needs to Act now.
He needs tell the voters his position on Cannabis Law reform *Now*… to get the debate going, and so that Act’s position can be made know at the National day of Protest which will be held this Saturday… everyone knows it as Jay Day.

I await with anticipation …. to see what Mettle he has.
In my view should he boldly step up and announce that Act will support Decriminalisation, I will be impressed.
This will suggest to Libertarian minded people that he is brave, and far more Enlightened and progressive than Act’s former Fascist Helmsman.
Should he fail to put out a press release in the next day or two Libertarians, and the thousands of Cannabis users can only assume one thing… that he is a political game player who is prepared to sell out principles under the delusion that via such shyster trading in souls…. that he will himself have a better chance of gaining Baubles of power.

This subject is a political Hot potato at the moment because of the absolute spineless flip flop of the National party and Peter Dunne in regards to Legal Highs, and the Psychoactive Substances Act in the wake of Labour David Cunliffes desperate and dirty Election year tactics to ride the wave of mindless phobia, media sensationalism, and non-scientific condemnation of synthetic cannabis use.
We have witnessed a full revival of the Witch Craze… “Synthetic Reefer Madness” .
No doubt many of the unprincipled ‘conservative’ Faction in Act would be waving their calculators and saying it would be ‘inexpedient’ in these circumstances to release a policy of Cannabis decriminalisation… yet they *Always* say that…every election year!
They all stood behind John Banks in opposition to Don Brash when he boldly advocated reform and argued for it’s Justice.

One wonders how such hypocrites can claim to be a party of small government, a party of Individual Freedom and reform when in reality they don’t have any policies which distinguish them from the Status Quo!
This faction honestly dont care that Cannabis users are being oppressed by the thousands via draconian Laws.

And their Modus opperandi has not been a success story, but a tale of absolute Failure!
Act’s wishy washy compromises have meant that in all the years they have been in parliament, they have achieved absolutely nothing.
They have simply been Sycophantic Lap dogs which have allowed Nation to apply their Nanny Statism!
The history of Act is one long tale of spineless sell outs…. they even were prepared to support a National- Maori party Coalition!
That says it all really.
The argument that it’s best to compromise so as to remain in the game… has been absolutely proven to be vacuous!
Yes individual Mp’s may have kept themselves warm under the wings of the Dragon… yet they achieved Zero for the people that voted for them… and thus they have lost all their support.
John Banks was the final nail in the coffin.
Jamie took the reigns with Act Polling >>>Zero<<

Well Brash has Gone… the way of Julius Caesar… Friends Knives sticking out of his Back!
John Banks shot himself multiple times in the foot regarding Lies in the Dotcom saga… and about his infamous Cuppa tea.
Now we have the Philosopher Jamie Whyte… Will do a Banksy on Cannabis users or will Be more Brash than Brash?
Ie will he be an inspiring leader willing to make some bold and principled moves, and have the Iron will to tell the Wimpish weasles at his back to pull their heads in and support the reforms… or stop pretending to be Liberals, Go join the National party, and dont let the Door spank you on your way out!
I honestly believe New Zealanders are crying out for a Real Leader, of a real Party of reform.
I believe the time is perfect to make such a move which is in diametric opposition to all the other parties…. esp in the light of the great reforms going on around the globe… particularly in America… and the Massive scientific enlightenment going on in respect to how safe Cannabis is, and how beneficial it is in respect to mental health, and as a powerful Anti-Cancer and anti Epilepsy Medicine.

Jamie could become the leader of the New Zealand enlightenment on this subject,and ride an upsurge of support into power…. which I believe is there wait for someone to vote for.

So I hope Jamie reads this post today, and Act’s upon it.
I would love to include his name in my Speech for this Saturday as a Man who is championing the justice of Ending Cannabis prohibition.

What say you James????
Time is of the essence.

marijuana-girl

You ain’t ever gonna stop this!
No amount of Jackbooted Tyranny has ever worked… nor will it eva!
Recreational use of Cannabis is virtually Harmless a is certainly not a Crime!
The Unjust laws which have purported a War against peaceful people are Criminal!
We await Liberation!

Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian Independent.

Update: 2-4-14…. ‘Twas the night before Jay Day, when all thro’ the house. Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse…
Surprise surprise!
Not Really.
No news on the Act front re Cannabis Law reform… so Norml NZ speakers at tomorrows Jay Day cant inform the thousands of Pot smokers and Libertarians that a vote for Act is a vote for liberty and justice.
I also take from this that Their New Leader Jamie Whyte is not prepared to go out on a limb for the sake of a persecuted yet peaceful minority, but intends playing populist politician and snuggling up to Nanny Statists National.
This has never worked for Act party Policies… only ever for Act party politicians… in the short term.
In the long term it has guaranteed their demise thus i foresee another miserable outcome for Act voters.
I would have loved to have shared a better report yet unfortunately it looks as if Jamie has failed to sweep the Act house of all the dead wood, and instead it taking their tired old unprincipled path towards political irrelevance.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Disappointed Activist for Ending Cannabis Prohibition.

Read more…. Hell’s Bells! Drugs and Alcohol are being consumed in an Adult manner by the employed masses!

NZ Research finds Synthetic Cannabis Low Risk. The Star Trust.

Low Crime Stats contradict Legal High mania mongers.

Eternal Vigilance welcomes food porn queen Higella Lawson to New Zealand!

Medical Cannabis. Wonder Drug! Halts Epileptic Seizures in Children! PTSD. Etc etc.

Hightimes. Biologist Explains How THC Kills Cancer Cells.

New Prohibitions. How our Police and Government work for Criminal Gangs.

Righteous Law Enforcers want to end the War on Drugs.

The Exit Drug… Cannabis.

Off the Grid. Jesse Ventura says Legalise Marijuana!

LEAP NZ Law Enforcement against Prohibition. New Zealand.

Pastors Focus On Decriminalizing Unjust Drug Laws.

Monumental Stoners: Thank Reefer and The KJV for the Enlightenment and Liberty.

Real voluntary private Charity vs the evils of welfare and Political force. .

libertarian-jesus

Recently I have been in communication with a newly formed charity organized by private citizens moved with concern for the growing number of homeless people in the city in which I live.
Though it would not take Sherlock homes to discover which organization I am talking about, I will not specify that here and now because firstly my purposes in writing this blog post don’t require me to be so specific… I am seeking to talk about private charity in general, and because my intentions here is not to castigate anyone in particular, but to educate… or at least bring to light some of my thoughts and thereby indirectly inform whomsoever hath an Ear.

I may add the specific name later if the organization in question so desires…

I have lived in Hamilton since the beginning of 1999, having moved over from Tauranga due to a Job transfer.

And though many people from the Bay of Plenty thought that we were crazy leaving the coastal paradise and moving to the Inland city, Hamilton has proven to be a wonderful city, and I have experienced unprecedented personal growth here.

Yet over the years with 9/11, and the Global economic collapse, rising Taxes, Rates, and the resulting increases in the cost of living…. Food, housing, etc… there has become an increasing number of homeless people congregating in the central city… predominately from the lower income earners…some are people with mental health issues or have expensive addictions… some are ex cons etc… thus for various reasons these people have not been able to keep their heads above water… and have become ‘social statistics’… members of a growing percentage of our population whom have fallen through the cracks… and now live in poverty.

When I herd about this new charitable organization I was impressed and burdened to lend my support…. Esp when I learned they were being harassed by the Hamilton city council… which has a habit of trying to run various minorities out of town simply because they don’t ‘fit’ well with their plans and delusions about what they think the CBD (Central Business District) should be… and consequently the CBD is dying a slow painful death…. Despite the HCC throwing millions of Rate payer dollars at it!

As a person with years of experience in local body politics I was keen to help this charity succeed in the face of the Bully tactics, harassment, and threats of arrest, etc the charity organizers have been enduring…and so I decide to attend several of their meetings, to meet those involved, to offer my assistance, and to see for myself how they intended to run their operation.

It was very interesting to say the least!
I met a very diverse bunch of people, primarily motivated by religious convictions and compassion for their fellow man.
This diversity in itself deserves a blogpost in its own right, and I will write about this aspect at a later…. Not too distant time, yet I have other specific things to discuss here and now.
It is enough for now to say that this diversity has meant that I was but one of many interested parties keen to help this organization…. Each with their own perspectives and advise as to how they believe the best course of action the Charity should pursue to overcome the many obstacles it faces and to succeed.

As a Libertarian Christian, I have an underlying philosophy of tolerance and respect for other peoples right to hold, and express their own beliefs and to pursue their own happiness, as long as they do it peacefully and at their own expense, and thus the first thing I suggested was that the Charity remained focused on it’s core ambition of providing meals to the homeless, and that in so doing they could avoid complications which would tend towards dis-unity and division.

They presented a Mission statement which was simple and profound… and acceptable to all present.

Thus it is that I was completely happy with the stated objectives and had no problems co-working with this diverse group.
I began to become optimistic, and to believe this was indeed a worthy voluntary association deserving of my time, effort, and cash… all of which are in short supply… esp cash… due to my struggles as a self employed man with the Inland revenue department, and several other Government departments which constantly demand more and more of my hard earned money.

Yet this High was short lived as unfortunately It was not long before a Big problem arose which threatens to disqualify me from being able to continue to offer my support.

It is a moral dilemma.
My Libertarianism can tolerate a great deal of wild and whacky things.
It can tolerate a lot of personal vice and bad character… yet there is a line in the sand over which I cannot step in good conscience… it is when people seek to use force upon others to achieve their goals and ambitions… even if those goals and ambitions appear noble and Humane.
I cannot tolerate the violation of peoples *legitimate* rights and liberties… which must be distinguished from the Manufactured Pseudo-rights claimed by socialists.
Real rights are God-given, and are not the gifts of Government.

That above statement may at first appear completely out of place!
Why would Tim raise such an issues here and now?
Wasn’t he talking about compassionate people eager to help the needy?
Why raise the issue of Force?
Why mention the violation of rights?

I want to talk about the philosophical/ ethical question of Ends and Means… in as simple a way as possible so as to be able to convey what the problem I encountered is all about, and what instead I believe is the better, more moral way to proceed.
A way in which I am most happy to participate.
I hope that in few words to lay out some of the most fundamental moral issues regarding Charitable works, and expose a very common misconception about what The proper duties of government are, and why Social welfare is in no way Charity in the Christian sense of the word.

I will only lightly touch on the principles involved and leave a great deal un-argued for the sake of simplicity.
I also implore my readers whom are unfamiliar with the Christian Libertarian Ethic to please seriously consider what I am about to say, even though it may be completely new…. Completely opposite to how you have become accustomed to think…. And especially…. If I am at all successful in articulating my position… to be brave enough to admit to yourself that I am right …. That I have spoken the truth…. Even if the consequences may mean you perceive a more difficult path ahead.

When Old ideas are undermined and we are faced with new challenges… it can be scary, and some will allow this fear to corrupt their hearts.
Thus with my exposition I put out the call for Faith!
Faith that doing the right thing is the right thing do… in the eyes of God.
That is what ought to be foremost in peoples minds… That God himself expects us to walk honestly…. And not to be lazy…. Or take short cuts or attempt to achieve our goals via unscrupulous means under the vain delusion that being for a worthy cause… the righteous end justifies wicked means.

Don’t allow yourselves to think…. Well everyone else accepts things ‘this way’…. That according to the majority… ‘this is fine’…. Etc.
I ask you to search your consciences… and by the time I have finished no one will be able to plead ignorance about the issues at hand.

I believe it is God’s will that I make this apology… that he wants this charity to make a choice as to how it will proceed.
I have no desire to become a point of division, and should my arguments be rejected, I shall quietly go my own way.

*********

Providence smiled, and the Charity has recently acquired a conveniently located property from which to operate which solved one of their biggest problems they faced with respect to the Council’s attempts to shift them out of the CBD and demand ‘Permit fees’… yet the council still did not get off their back, but has decided to ‘investigate them’… and has been using various devious means to gather information on how they are operating…. With the obvious intention of using the said information to make life as difficult as possible for them and even to find legal grounds to shut them down.

Thus with news of these developments, I was invited to attend a second meeting.

Another issue had arisen that day with the publication of the Saturday 26-4-14 edition of the Waikato Times, which featured a front page story on the activities of some to the members of the charity. I will write on that at a later date…. Yet the meeting started off with discussions about this article, and then progressed onto the ongoing problems with the Hamilton city council.

It was then that someone…. A person whose good intentions I am not questioning…. A person who is a political activist…. began to express their opinions about what they saw as the ‘Evil directions’ Mayor Julie Hardacre was taking the city council… and said that not only was the City council failing in it’s moral responsibilities to the Homeless, but that other policies demonstrated a lack of social concern…. Such as dropping the funding for community houses, and a desire to sell off pensioner flats.

She used the phrase that Council was focusing on “Bricks and mortar” insinuating a callous neglect of what she believes are far more important moral duties …. social concern for human beings.

Now as a Libertarian I am certainly no fan of the Powers that be in the H.C.C and have said many times that I believe them to be heartless power-trippers… yet for very different reasons than what this activist was enunciating… I rabidly oppose the Status quo … none the less it behoved me to correct some of the misguided ideas which had just been tabled.

I have run for council and mayor many times, and so I interjected with my first hand knowledge of the realities behind these Council spending cuts and asset sales.
I said that Julie hardaker certainly had not undertaken this course of action because she believes in a ‘Bricks and mortar only’ ideology, or from any assumed ‘heartless capitalist mindset, but that these austerity measures and asset sales had in fact been *reluctantly enacted* because of the *huge city debts* which successions of mismanagement, and big spending councillors had racked up… and under which the backs of Ratepayers are now buckling.

I said that when Hardaker had originally ran for mayor she either ignorantly, or purposefully ignored the dire financial crisis of the H.C.C and like all the other Candidates…. had campaigned via promising everyone the moon!

(Julie Hardaker is a big spender at heart… yet after she was elected there was no money in the coffers… and big bills to pay… and so she was forced by economic realities which could no longer be ignored to bite the bullet and implement a program of cuts and savings.)

My reply was met with no acknowledgement.

Instead what followed was a proposal to have a ‘hui’ with government departments like Mental health, local Labour party Mps, and lefty city councillors… in particular big spending socialist Dave Mcpherson… with the intention of getting these political powers ‘on board’… obviously with the intention of tapping into Government funds and utilities, etc…. under the belief that it was the governments responsibility to get involved and aid this charity work.
In other words… “Lets make them Pay!”

And before I could say that I thought that was an absolutely terrible plan, the Director of the Charity nodded with agreement and gave her endorsement to proceed down that path!

In five minutes flat I had been completely shut down.
I did not have opportunity to explain why I considered that proposal was a very bad plan as I was not prepared to impose my contrary opinion …. once the director had given her endorsement.
I had no desire at all to become the center of division, all I could do was say that I personally could not endorse that proposal and that it would be best that I leave.
I said that what had attracted me to this organization was that it was a private, voluntary charity, and that I had intended to help them get the government off their backs so that they could get on with the business of feeding the poor… not to get into bed with government.
I asked if they had needed the Governments help so far… and was told ‘not yet.’

Thus I took my leave, promising I would write some bogs on this subject and see what developed… and that depending on how things panned out… that would determine how far I would continue to travel together with them.

It was disappointing for me, yet not surprising considering western society is predominantly Social Democrat in nature which means the population has been indoctrinated and have become acclimatized to living in a heavily politicized environment in which the tentacles of the state reach into every corner of our lives… and charge us for the privileged via Taxes, Rates, etc.
This is the Norm…. If you want something done… you don’t do it yourself… you don’t rally your neighbours…. You lobby the government…. And get them involved…
Nanny state.

Thus it was an almost automatic response to endorse ‘the hui’ proposal… no need for further discussion….. It was ‘common sense’ from an educated and experienced political operator… an adult law student none the less.
Surely any objection Tim Wikiriwhi has to this ‘common sense’ proposal must be naive…. Must be unimportant….. must be petty and irrational.

Well finally Dear Reader…. having explained the circumstances as to why I have ended up out in the cold… I will now type out what I never had the opportunity to say at the second meeting….my rationale as to why I reject the hui proposal and will present what I believe to be a much better plan… a much more ethical means to achieving the desired ambitions of the charity.

compassion

Let me state that the fundamental problem with the ‘Hui plan’ begins with the assumptions firstly that it is the duty of Government to run social welfare programs… that Hamilton city council is somehow neglecting their duty to provide for the homeless!

Now to many people whom have become ‘normalised’ to Government micromanagement of everything… that may seem like a crazy statement!
Of course the city Council and Government have a moral responsibility!… don’t they???
To deny this moral obligation is to be a cold hearted bastard!!! Yes???

No! and No!

Let me explain why to believe such things is extremely misguided and counter productive to the desired ends of Less homeless people… less Hungry people.

First lets look at the fundamental moral question.
I present to you the following situation…

Two people bring money to give to the charity for feeding the poor.
One is a little old man… retired… and he brings $20.00 which he has withdrawn from his ample savings from a lifetime of hard work and prudent financial self-responsibility.
He makes a direct payment via internet banking.

A second person is a thief, He brings $2000. 00 and says he got the money by robbing Rich bastards living in a fancy neighbourhood…with a gun.
He then drops the money into the charity collection plate outside the mall.

Now which of these two people has the truly righteous and charitable soul… and which one is the Fraud?

I hope that nobody struggles to distinguish the heart of the matter.
Obviously the first person is the real charitable person because they gave willingly from their own pockets, where as the second Guy took the money by force and then put that in the collection plate… obviously the money was not even his in the first place, and secondly he had gotten his filthy hands on the money by force!

Even if the second person says he did not steel the money for himself but took it because he cares deeply about the plight of the poor, does his apparent social concern justify his means of attaining the money?

Does their heart motive ‘cleanse’ the money?
Can it ever be truly said that the charitable desire to help feed the poor can justify such an unrighteous means of finance?

No doubt the stolen $2000.00 will buy a lot more food for the poor than the earned and gifted $20.00 yet does that make the $2000.00 better than the $20.00???
What do you think God would say about this?

Now let me tell you that it is the same thing regarding the difference between Real voluntary private charity…. And Government social welfare.
One is righteous because it is given freely from the heart, the other is money which has been taken from others by force… vai Taxation, Rates, and by creating Government debts which must be paid by the citizens.

Social welfare is an atheist invention designed to counterfeit Christian charity.
The atheists set up a counterfeit ‘morality’ designed to replace Christianity.. in which the State is God… the source of all benevolence.

Do not be deceive by the fact that socialist governments have created Laws which pseudo-legitimizes this extortion and forced redistribution of wealth!
These Laws are Evil!
They cannot turn theft into a virtue.
Only in the minds of fools is such voodoo possible.

quote-of-all-tyrannies-a-tyranny-sincerely-exercised-for-the-good-of-its-victims-may-be-the-most-c-s-lewis-111562

It can never be the legitimate duty of Government to Rob the people whose rights it was instituted to protect… even if a majority says that they want the state to do just that!
Mob rule is not a Christian principle, but another denial of Christian absolute morality.
It is yet another secular invention in opposition to Christian values and ideals.
Christianity is not supposed to operate via political force but by a voluntary submission to the will of God…

It matters not that Taxation may be an easy means by which billions of dollars can be appropriated under the pretext of financing massive social welfare schemes… It’s all filthy lucre! Stolen money taken at the point of a gun…. Under threat of being stripped of all your property, or imprisonment!

Do you really expect God to bless your efforts and reward you in heaven when you have accepted money that was taken by force via the tyrannical and filthy hands of Double-chinned politicians?
The Political system represents Mammon… not God.
There is no way that state welfare can be construed to be Christian charity.
It’s a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Furthermore Social welfare breeds laziness, vice, and dependence…. Not self responsibility…. Not self-reliant independence!

Why go to church when you can avoid the Preachy types and go to social welfare instead?
Thanks to the feminist Atheists in parliament.

While the Bible supports giving charity to those in need it is careful not to encourage sloth….
“If any man will not work… neither should he eat”… said St Paul, our Apostle to the Thessalonians.
(2Thes3:10 KJV)

There is a big difference between giving someone a meal, and giving them a dole cheque!
How much Dole money gets spent on Cigarettes booze, gambling, and drugs… while the average family struggles away under heavy taxation…. and goes without essentials like the dentist of the doctor…because of the cost of Milk and bread?…. just so the socialist politicians can hand out money willy nilly?

Ask yourselves why does the cost of living keep going up and Up?
Why is the Government always increasing Taxes?
The chief reason is not Greedy Capitalists.
Its because the government keeps passing more and more laws and growing bigger and bigger and bigger… and all this *increase in the expense of running the political system* is passed onto the consumers.

bastiat

Frederick Bastiats small book >>>‘The Law’<<< is a must read on this subject Ever expanding government is the chief cause of inflation and why The necessities of life are becoming too expensive for the low income earners to afford! And the government spends spends spends…. Borrows borrows borrows. Mortgaging our Children. Rents go through the roof… the consumer carries all the costs. And more people are impoverished and oppressed.... crumbling under the weight. the-more-corrupt-the-state-the-more-numerous-the-laws

Remember Governments don’t generate wealth… free enterprise, prudent investment, and Free exercise of our talents and ingenuity does that.
Government expenses and foolish regulations *generate Poverty!*
Politicians are notoriously poor handlers of finances… always blowing budgets… always suffering losses… yet what do they care?
They arent risking and loosing their own money… they are gambling and giving away billions of other peoples money… money they have taken from Joe Public who lives on on struggle st.
They have taken it by political force!

Knowing these things how can any charity lobby for Funds from Government?
Knowing how it is the Government Tax theft and incompetence which is the number 1 cause generating poverty?
Who could desire such Ill gotten gains?

Not I!

One thing is for sure…. I know the difference between real charity and fake political coercion!
I cannot endorse or belong to any fake charity who is in bed with the government… and happy to use money that was wrongfully appropriated from the people who earned it.
This is why I cannot endorse ‘the Hui’ proposal as it ignores all these corrupt means of action and ignores the poverty Big government generates…. And in fact seeks to get into bed with this evil system… and add to the extortion…. Add to the debt.

Thus to my way of thinking the only real charity is one which remains 100% voluntary…. 100% Private…. 100% funded via means which does not involve political force.

I know that we are forced to pay taxes, yet that does not justify us then lobbying for tax revenues…. That is to get into bed with the beast… the Harlot.

These are just some of the evils of Social democracy…. I could go on and on… talking about how the Burden of big government ruins our competitive advantages in the global trade thereby costing us Jobs and shrinking our economy.
I could talk about how their silly rules and regulations restricts job opportunities…etc etc.

I must make the point that Big busy body socialist Government is a massive financial burden upon the backs of the hard working and productive which greatly hobbles their ability to take care of themselves and their families and makes them less secure and able to cope with the slings and arrows of daily existence. Ie it drags more and more people towards the breadline.

It siphons away money which would otherwise have been invested in Business, and used by the real entrepreneurs and producers to generate wealth and expand our economy!

We need to keep the size and expense of government to an absolute minimum!

Looking back at Julie Hardakers Austerity measures for the city council…
though she is a big spender at heart and only reluctantly implemented a program of cuts and savings.
Oddly enough, Her decision to do so, and to focus on ‘bricks and mortar was by far the most prudent, and *ultimately the most humane course of action to take!
These cost and debt reductions, and down sizing actually mirrored to a lesser extent my own Libertarian policies on which I myself campaigned!

jeff
It was the heavy Taxations of the English crown which caused the American war of Independence.
And it was at that time that Protestant theologians and philosophers were inquiring into what… if any… were the legitimate duties of Government.

This is an Ironic truth which is very difficult for many people to grasp, that having a small government which does not run social programs is in reality… the most socially contentious and prudent policy of all!
It is difficult to appreciate the dynamics involved because much of the effects of policies are not immediately apparent… and much is purposely downplayed.
It is the job of Political science to set out all the effects of various ‘social experiments’ as to their effectiveness and to highlight any unforeseen negative effects.
Sadly Our socialist Universities pump out little socialist political scientists who are utterly convinced of their own importance as Social engineers… manipulating or society via infinite political interventions.
And they actively engage in mass propaganda to make the people believe that big Government is their friend and that Freedom is the enemy.
Libertarianism is attacked on all levels by a schooled political class with Heavy vested interests in maintaining Big Government… and heavy Taxation.
They are pulling the wool over the peoples eyes and rejecting the teachings of the greatest economist of all Time… Adam Smith… why Free-market capitalism works best towards Social good, and prosperity.

AdamSmithSelfInterest2

Yet Here and now I have dared to challenge the Beast system!
I declare it is the economic realities of Small government and Independence which tend towards greater wealth and prosperity for all… which are an important pragmatic reality which compliments my just moral principles which oppose Social welfare and taxation… and underpin a belief that Real charity must be private funded… by those people who care… at a rate they determine they can afford, and are happy to give… from a surplus of their savings and efforts…. which they themselves determine is above their own needs to provide for themselves and their families.

This is what is missing from the current Socialist conception of the welfare state… and why it is an absolute failure which leads to National bankruptcy and serious declines in the standard of living for the working class… and an ever growing ‘Social static’ of those living in poverty on the streets.

The very last thing an enlightened and compassionate person should do is lobby the government or council to Tax the people… so that funds can be made available to feed the poor!
That is not only immoral… it is utterly self defeating!
It creates More Poverty and a Political Monster!
The Socialist Leviathan State!

If we want to feed the poor lets do it by Real charity… without any political ‘aid’.
If we actually care about the decline in our society we in fact should be protesting against the Beast system… not encouraging it!
We need to stand on our own feet, and demand the government Downsizes and reduces debt and taxes accordingly.
And when we have got this obese Socialist Gorilla off our backs Real charities and churches will flourish and become the norm.
And our economy will grow, and poverty will decrease,
Self reliance will greatly displace welfare dependence.
Self responsibility will greatly displace sloth and vice.

And money will not be stolen from those who earned it… the principle of reaping what you sow will be re-established.

Thus I say that the only moral and prudent means to finance this charity… and all charities which is consistent with the Christian Modus opperandi is to remain an absolutely Voluntary and private association which gets its financial support the old fashioned way… via fund raisers and soliciting charitable donations from our fellow citizens and from private industries and businesses.
The charitable trust should seek endorsements from prominent New Zealanders and even look into modern methods such as are being employed successfully by operations like Canteen.

I believe this is an absolutely viable option, and it also means the charity maintains full control over their own destiny, and is in no way dependent upon government or political power in any way shape or form.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Read more on Charity, etc…

Hamilton Homeless Meet and Greet… The Lords feet and hands working in the trenches.

NEED A PERMIT TO HELP THE POOR? Nazi Hamilton Council Bastards!

The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.

Albert J Nock and the Atrophy of Charity and Self-Reliance

Reality Punches Socialist’s In The Face!

Charlie Delta and Cliven Bundy: New York Times slander.

Charlie Delta and Cliven Bundy.
Charlie Delta and Cliven Bundy Stand together.

From Facebook … >>>Here<<< Please make viral. "The media distorts information to the point of social division. This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy. He's a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator. One thing he definitely isn't - a racist. I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences. Who the heck are we to determine another man's perspective on the world around him?! Just because Picasso's view of the world was abstract, does it negate the fact that his art was genuine? Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you'll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight. He posed a hypothetical question. He said, "I wonder IF" ... Hell, I'm black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family. Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color. Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example: Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc. He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government "assistance" and the long term result of accepting handouts. It's not progress at all. I challenge Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and others to read my comment and reconsider their position in this matter. Individual liberties are at stake here, yours and mine. THAT is the issue. Don't let the liberal media and ignoramuses like Glenn Beck and that weasel Harry Reid make you lose sight of the real issue here: The federal government is a burgeoning behemoth and a bully on a once constitutional playground. I sincerely hope you real patriots out there who can see through the smoke. Semper Fidelis ************************************* The New York times has tried to undermine public support for The Bundy's by gross distortion of Cliven's public statements about the plight of Americans, esp Blacks under the current socialist tyranny.... and they hacked and re-hashed his comments to make him out to be a stupid racist. Now obviously Cliven is no polished PR expert, yet to label him a racist is a disgusting slur...a lie yet a typical tactic of Tyranny loving lefty Obama sycophants. When the Media have gotten into bed with corrupt government they have utterly failed in their moral duty.

bundy

Thankfully demonstrations of solidarity like these above show that you cant fool all the people… all the time.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Read this Infowars article and watch Cliven Bundy’s full discourse … >>>InfoWars: Bundy tape was edited to exclude his ‘pro-black, pro-Mexican’ comments<<< Read more on the Bundy Resistance.... US State Terrorism. Pretext to abolish the second Amendment. Bundy’s declared ‘Domestic Terrorists’.

Read more about the evils of Collusion between media and the State…

Lost Plot. World Press Freedom Day.

FOX5 Vegas – KVVU